reset_draft

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the operation is destructive to draft edits, that it resets to the phone-sourced layout as the baseline, and crucially that it is undoable. It stops short of stating permissions, whether sibling-draft state (e.g., folders) is also reverted, or any confirmations required.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, tightly packed sentence with the action front-loaded and the two critical qualifiers (source of truth, undoable) attached. No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-param, no-annotation mutation with an output schema, the essentials are covered: what is discarded, what state replaces it, and that it can be reversed. Only the comparison to undo/restore is missing, which would fully close the loop.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate or compensate for.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('throw away') and resource ('draft edits'), plus the resulting state ('layout as read from the phone'). It's clear what happens, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from undo, redo, or restore, which sit in the same undo-history area of the sibling list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer it should call this when it wants to discard uncommitted draft edits. There's no explicit guidance on when to prefer undo, redo, or restore instead, which are close functional neighbors.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.